Sasun Posted June 14, 2004 Report Share Posted June 14, 2004 Sasun, humans have and always been both, rational and irrational giving the source of such a state of mind, but what you are saying is, if one is rational in thinking and at the same time understands and excepts the teachings of a specific religion or all that can not be, how else would one know and differentiate the value of the teaching(s) in which it is suppose to fallow? And why can’t one be rational and have moral values at the same time. Don’t you agree religion would be best served if one understands the value of it, which is by thinking and absorbing it? Like every single information or a concept we encounter in life! I agree that we are both rational and irrational, and there is nothing wrong with that. We must be rational and moral at the same time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sasun Posted June 14, 2004 Report Share Posted June 14, 2004 (edited) "What Is The Origin of Secular Humanism? Secular humanism as an organized philosophical system is relatively new, but its foundations can be found in the ideas of classical Greek philosophers such as the Stoics and Epicureans as well as in Chinese Confucianism. These philosophical views looked to human beings rather than gods to solve human problems. During the Dark Ages of Western Europe, humanist philosophies were suppressed by the political power of the church. Those who dared to express views in opposition to the prevailing religious dogmas were banished, tortured or executed. Not until the Renaissance of the fourteenth to seventeenth centuries, with the flourishing of art, music, literature, philosophy and exploration, would consideration of the humanist alternative to a god-centered existence be permitted. During the Enlightenment of the eighteenth century, with the development of science, philosophers finally began to openly criticize the authority of the church and engage in what became known as "free thought." The nineteenth century Freethought movement of America and Western Europe finally made it possible for the common citizen to reject blind faith and superstition without the risk of persecution. The influence of science and technology, together with the challenges to religious orthodoxy by such celebrity freethinkers as Mark Twain and Robert G. Ingersoll brought elements of humanist philosophy even to mainline Christian churches, which became more concerned with this world, less with the next. In the twentieth century scientists, philosophers, and progressive theologians began to organize in an effort to promote the humanist alternative to traditional faith-based world views. These early organizers classified humanism as a non-theistic religion which would fulfill the human need for an ordered ethical/philosophical system to guide one's life, a "spirituality" without the supernatural. In the last thirty years, those who reject supernaturalism as a viable philosophical outlook have adopted the term "secular humanism" to describe their non-religious life stance. Critics often try to classify secular humanism as a religion. Yet secular humanism lacks essential characteristics of a religion, including belief in a deity and an accompanying transcendent order. Secular humanists contend that issues concerning ethics, appropriate social and legal conduct, and the methodologies of science are philosophical and are not part of the domain of religion, which deals with the supernatural, mystical and transcendent. Secular humanism, then, is a philosophy and world view which centers upon human concerns and employs rational and scientific methods to address the wide range of issues important to us all. While secular humanism is at odds with faith-based religious systems on many issues, it is dedicated to the fulfillment of the individual and humankind in general. To accomplish this end, secular humanism encourages a commitment to a set of principles which promote the development of tolerance and compassion and an understanding of the methods of science, critical analysis, and philosophical reflection. " Secular Humanism Thanks for the time to find a good answer Anoushik. My question was more rhetoric though. The point I am trying to make is, humanists and religion agree that we must do good, but humanists fail to explain why, while religion will say because God tells us to do so, for example. I believe that humanists share many of the same views with religions, but the scope is limited because they chose to be limited. And again, humanism is not rational. Humanism has COMMANDMENTS, just like religion that must be followed to be qualified as a humanist Edited June 14, 2004 by Sasun Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
THOTH Posted June 14, 2004 Author Report Share Posted June 14, 2004 The point I am trying to make is, humanists and religion agree that we must do good, but humanists fail to explain why wrong while religion will say because God tells us to do so, for example. I actually find this sad...we have to be told to do good...like a dog that has to be taught not to bite...some folks don't require to be leashed you know... I believe that humanists share many of the same views with religions, but the scope is limited because they chose to be limited. And again, humanism is not rational. Humanism has COMMANDMENTS, just like religion that must be followed to be qualified as a humanist Humans share some basic values accross cultures/religions etc...kind of makes sense that we would - doesn't it? Funny that you claim humanism is not rational...just what is it about re-incarnation is rational? How can it be proven/observed? It is just a belief...based on???? Same with a diety.... Humanism is a philosohy as explained in Anoushiks post. It is basically calling out for awarness...I dont quite think you can say there are any "commandments" - I mean come now...I mean what if we stray from these "commandments" what then...I haven't seen the list of punishments for transgressions or even the suggestion of such. And for someone who believes in religions/superstitions etc to claim humaninsm is irrational...that is a laugh... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sasun Posted June 14, 2004 Report Share Posted June 14, 2004 You make it look like "Rational" is what science is and "Irrational" what religion is. This is not the cases, science in itself is the study of nature, foundamental science is based on math which is rational, but to explain things that are not necessarly rational. Quantum phenomenen are counter intuitive, the observation itself is irrational, but we explain it with a rational matter. Domino, how can science have anything that is not rational? So what quantum mechanics is counter-intiuitive? It is still rational. Religion is the same thing, but in the differences that it deals with the methaphysic and does not have to explain any irrational thing in a rational mather... it can, and many time it will... but rational does not necessarly mean its the right way. Because in religion the princpe of prediction does not exist, the principe of repetability does not exist either. This is how rationalist philosophy appeared, it tries to use logic to explain the methaphysic and not physic phenomenen... philosophy is about the qualia of things, and unlike religion that is dogmatic, philosophy is not, just like science, it moves adapt etc... Domino, why do you always think that religion is supposed to explain things? That's not what religion is about. Religion is only a step in spiritual development. It cannot explain the universe and generally does not try. For more advanced development there is yoga which can and does explain everything metaphysical that science and religion can never explain. Religion is like a kindergarten level of education. And here the new baby that appeared, the multiverse, its the unification of everything, it is the future of everything... religionists, like scientists, as well as philosophers will get from it what they want... it's more magical than magical. We will finally get the unification of the 4 foundamental forces, we will understand that humans are not physical antities, but that there is a syncornised superposition between every "me" in infinit numbers of universes, and that consciousness has an impact on the destiny of the selectec universe(selected by consciousness). You will have to provide a lot of evidence for this Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anoushik Posted June 14, 2004 Report Share Posted June 14, 2004 The point I am trying to make is, humanists and religion agree that we must do good, but humanists fail to explain why, while religion will say because God tells us to do so, for example. I believe that humanists share many of the same views with religions, but the scope is limited because they chose to be limited. And again, humanism is not rational. Humanism has COMMANDMENTS, just like religion that must be followed to be qualified as a humanist Humanism is very rational. Humanism is rational while religion is not. Like Thoth said in religion a person is just told to be good without questioning why, but in humanism a person rationally comes to the conclusion that we must be good and do good for the survival of humanity. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
THOTH Posted June 14, 2004 Author Report Share Posted June 14, 2004 Anoushik - Sasun didn't see any of my posts - you see he has all my posts blocked - so that his belief system can't be exposed to question...so he didn't see that...so there can be no question that good can only come through religion (wonder if that holds true for evil?) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sasun Posted June 14, 2004 Report Share Posted June 14, 2004 Humanism is very rational. Humanism is rational while religion is not. Like Thoth said in religion a person is just told to be good without questioning why, but in humanism a person rationally comes to the conclusion that we must be good and do good for the survival of humanity. Anoushik, why don't you show that humanism is rational? You are just making a claim. Please explain how humanism is rational? Who said that without humanism the humanity or part of it will not survive? And who said that humanity must survive? How is it rationally explained? Can't you live for yourself and be happy even if after you there was a flood. I won't take anything granted from a rational thinker, I need a clear reasoning and solid logic. If not then I will call you irrational Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anoushik Posted June 14, 2004 Report Share Posted June 14, 2004 Sasun, is it true that you can't see Thoth's posts? If so, why? If that's not true and Thoth is just making it up why don't you answer to his posts? He's good some very good arguments. Humanism is rational and I will show you later tonight. Now I have to get ready to go to work. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sasun Posted June 14, 2004 Report Share Posted June 14, 2004 Sasun, is it true that you can't see Thoth's posts? If so, why? If that's not true and Thoth is just making it up why don't you answer to his posts? He's good some very good arguments. Humanism is rational and I will show you later tonight. Now I have to get ready to go to work. I will be looking forward to your answer. Please also think about the question "why must we be good?" according to humanism. P.S. As far as the self-proclaimed "god" Thoth, since you are asking I will answer: he is simply not worth my time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sip Posted June 14, 2004 Report Share Posted June 14, 2004 Hmm... I don't think it is possible. There is never a logical answer to questions like "why must we be good?", "why must we care for others?", etc... these questions cannot be answered through logic and reasoning. I am not religious at all yet I am not that bad a person once you get to know me. Note this is the "member" Sip posting and not that evil evil evil egoistic moderator dude. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sasun Posted June 14, 2004 Report Share Posted June 14, 2004 I am not religious at all yet I am not that bad a person once you get to know me. Note this is the "member" Sip posting and not that evil evil evil egoistic moderator dude. That's true, but please explain, why are you not bad? Why must you be good? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExtraHye Posted June 14, 2004 Report Share Posted June 14, 2004 That's true, but please explain, why are you not bad? Why must you be good? It's impossible for anyone to be good all the time. Some may think they are, but then they also call themselves God. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
THOTH Posted June 14, 2004 Author Report Share Posted June 14, 2004 I will be looking forward to your answer. Please also think about the question "why must we be good?" according to humanism. You say "must" - well obvioulsy we have no fear of hell holding over us...thus I argue we use reason and understanding...not fear of punishment to do/be good...now wouldn't you think that this makes it more genuine..and thus more good? P.S. As far as the self-proclaimed "god" Thoth, since you are asking I will answer: he is simply not worth my time. In other words he doesn't wish his beliefs challenged/threatened...so typical of the believer...but we thought you were more enlightened then this Sasun? ...guess not...just what does Sri Chimnoy say about this one? "when the enlightened Atheist says "who needs it?" then you must place hands over ears and repeat your mantra...is that clear grasshopper?" lol - messing with you dude...you can take it - no? I'm sure somewhere in his bountiless teachings her Guru says something about "lightening up" ..and the other guy says - "love your enemies" "Turn the other cheek" and no bacon on Thursdays...so I'm sure somewhere in there you can manage to ease it up...if not - oh well...I'll just chalk it up to failure of the individual...and not the religion... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Armat Posted June 14, 2004 Report Share Posted June 14, 2004 We do not learn by experience but by our capacity for experience Buddha Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sasun Posted June 14, 2004 Report Share Posted June 14, 2004 Armat, instead of playing chess and gardening, you should post more often this type of stuff Seriously, I admire Buddha's teachings and would like to learn more Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bellthecat Posted June 14, 2004 Report Share Posted June 14, 2004 I seem to recall us having had this discussion before. I believe that morality can be arrived at through logic and thought. Close, I think. I think morality IS the product of logic and thought. But for most people the product (if it is accepted at all) is merely learned, or rather mimiced, rather than properly understood. And it has to be the collective product of collective logic and thought. Otherwise you are just producing a set of little gods that are walking around with their own personal morality and the perfect excuse to commit any act. I don't doubt that the worlds worst serial killer thinks he / she is a very moral person. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bellthecat Posted June 14, 2004 Report Share Posted June 14, 2004 As far as the self-proclaimed "god" Thoth, since you are asking I will answer: he is simply not worth my time. Hmm, I know he thinks it, and acts like he was. but has he gone as far as publicly proclaiming it? (And if he has, must we now be using a capitalised "He" when refering to Him? <_< ) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
axel Posted June 14, 2004 Report Share Posted June 14, 2004 And it has to be the collective product of collective logic and thought Are you claiming here that morality may proceed from democratic consensus? The sum of all subjectivisms is still subjectivism, isn't it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bellthecat Posted June 14, 2004 Report Share Posted June 14, 2004 Are you claiming here that morality may proceed from democratic consensus? The sum of all subjectivisms is still subjectivism, isn't it? Yes it does. Do you honestly think it doesn't? Whatever the majority thinks is moral the majority will think is moral. Though that doesn't mean that it is a corect moral - only time will tell that. Time to prove that it will work. And if it works then it isn't subjective, is it? I suppose many philosophers have written hefty tomes on this subject - books which I have not read and probably never will read. But, thankfully, a sparrow doesn't need to learn aero-dynamics to fly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sasun Posted June 15, 2004 Report Share Posted June 15, 2004 Here are Buddhist outlook and 'commandments' in a nutshell. The main point being, there is no salvation without morality, and the morality is defined as a set of rules that must be followed in order to be moral. The Four Noble Truths Life is suffering. Suffering is caused by attachment to desires. Suffering can be ended by overcoming attachment to desires. The way to end suffering is the Noble Eightfold Path. The Noble Eightfold Path Right view Right thought Right speech Right action Right livelihood Right effort Right mindfulness Right contemplation Steps 1 through 5 concern ethics and morality. Steps 6, 7 & 8 are more advanced and concern practice of meditation and going to higher levels of consciousness through practice, and ultimately to Nirvana (or Kindgom of Heaven if you wish to call it that way). Without morality one cannot go anywhere. This is a tested and proven path to salvation, waiting for the taker. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sasun Posted June 15, 2004 Report Share Posted June 15, 2004 Close, I think. I think morality IS the product of logic and thought. I have yet to see a logical and thoughtful arrival at morality. All I have seen so far is claims. Please enlighten, if not then I will call it a baseless claim Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gevo27 Posted June 15, 2004 Report Share Posted June 15, 2004 Im not an emotional guy, but the first 5 posts in this thread made me wanna cry.. and i didnt even read the rest.. as to the qustion at hand.. yes all of the commandments need to be followed.. and the old testament is the red carpet for the new testament, and the new testament is the seal of the old testaments prophecies.. you guys have no clue what you are saying, you have little phrases memorized which in your eyes seem to contradict eachother or wahtever.. but that is no basis for "hating" christianity.. anwyhow.. good luck to all Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
axel Posted June 15, 2004 Report Share Posted June 15, 2004 Whatever the majority thinks is moral the majority will think is moral. Though that doesn't mean that it is a corect moral - only time will tell that. Time to prove that it will work. And if it works then it isn't subjective, is it? Well, Steve, this just validates my point as to moral not deriving from democratic consensus but rather corresponding to an intangible law whose existence is asserted by the cultural decay its continuing transgression almost certainly leads to. You agree that if moral is just the result of agreement, as agreement fluctuates over time and societies, it is unstable and cannot hold. It is a mere convention subject to change. Moral relativism leads to the rejection of moral as a whole (what is the validity of a moral that is bound to change?) and serves the purpose of amorality as expressed in the famous phrase "if God does not exist, everything is permitted". (where God is to be understood as the absolute that is above man) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anoushik Posted June 15, 2004 Report Share Posted June 15, 2004 Anoushik, why don't you show that humanism is rational? You are just making a claim. Please explain how humanism is rational? Who said that without humanism the humanity or part of it will not survive? And who said that humanity must survive? How is it rationally explained? Can't you live for yourself and be happy even if after you there was a flood. I won't take anything granted from a rational thinker, I need a clear reasoning and solid logic. Ok, here goes. (Credits to my father, as we had a great discussion tonight regarding this matter.) If there was only one person who lived on a remote island all by himself that person would be free to do whatever he pleased. But as soon as another person arrived both their independence would be limited. And the more people the less freedom to do as one pleases. By nature humans are social animals and we depend on each other for our survival. And thus instead of seeing people living away from each other on remote islands we see that humans have lived in a society for as long as humanity has existed. In order to answer what is morality we have to look at what is society and what is social structure. A society is a group of people who have a similar cultural background and live in a specific geographical area, and the social structure refers to the network of interrelationships among individuals and groups. Now, obviously society has existed from the beginning of humanity. And from the beginning the members in a society learned that they have to create certain rules that everyone has to follow so that the given society could continue to exist. Why rules? Because we all know that one’s freedom ends where another one’s begins. Why do you agree to follow rules Sasun? Why do you stop at red lights? The same goes for morality. The belief “treat others like you want to be treated” is a social construct, realized for the survival and the betterment of a society. This has nothing to do with religion. So, to answer your question of “why must we be good?” the plain answer is that it’s good for the society, and thus it is good for the individual, since every individual is also part of the society. PS. I realize that I didn't exactly explain how humanism is rational and how I can rationally explain why humanity must survive. But I think what I have written above is directly related to what we were talking about. (Also, it's late and I'm tired.) But I'd like to know how you explain according to religion why humanity must survive. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Armen Posted June 15, 2004 Report Share Posted June 15, 2004 I respect natural science and value the work of scientists. But scientists are never going to prove that there exists an end of the world and that it is material. Well, imagine if they do prove that there is an end of all universes. And that it is a wall, or some fancy materia that doesn't have anything behind it...Well you'll always ask the question: "What is behind..., what comes after that materia?" because your brain allows you to penetrate any materia with brainpower. Our brainpower is limited to physical and emotional cognition. And there are some primitive, simple questions it can never answer, like what are the smallest and biggest materia in this world? We can wait for centuries until scientists decompose materia to smaller and smaller units. But you can always devide any smallest material unit they find into two parts simply by thinking that it can happen. Probably in there research the scientists will find more cures for more illnesses by futher decomposing DNA going deep into genes, sub-genes, sub-sub-genes. Again you can devide anything they find as the smallest materia into two parts with your thought. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.